The biggest thing that jumps out is the test 4 times per year thing. Sorry buddy but that's already being done. In fact a lot of squadrons are having practice PT tests every single month. Testing people 4 times per year would be a huge waste of money.

I did like his idea about changing the pushup and situps to 2 minutes and not having a max number of points. In my opinion the challenge with pushup was never getting them all in it was being able to do the max. You could give some people 10 minutes and they aren't going to do any more pushups than they already can.

I also like the idea of removing the waist measurement with the extra points being made up in any category you want. Basically, have a minimum for pushups, situps, and run. On top of the three minimums you need to pick upa few extra points. It would be on the individual how they want to do that.

I also agree with the standards being set based on your age as opposed to age groups.

In shirt, I agree with lots of portions of this guy's idea. I just think he is ate up for two reasons. Number one he wants to test people four times per year. That is a huge waste. The biggest reason he is ate up is this quote from the article

Boscarino, in the Air Force almost 9½ years, has never failed the PT test. But he recently took the test while recovering from an injury — instead of getting a waiver — and passed the minimum by only a few points.

Really? He knew he was injured but he gutted it out anyways? That is a good way to hurt yourself. That just tells you how much value the AF and this guy put on the test. Even though he's hurt he thinks he is Peyton Manning playing in the super bowl and he is just going to gut it out for the good of the team.

sandsjames

07-03-2014, 09:03 PM

Apoligies if someone has already posted this but I didn't see it. Check out this article from AF Times. This 9 year SSgt has some ideas for the AF

The biggest thing that jumps out is the test 4 times per year thing. Sorry buddy but that's already being done. In fact a lot of squadrons are having practice PT tests every single month. Testing people 4 times per year would be a huge waste of money.

I did like his idea about changing the pushup and situps to 2 minutes and not having a max number of points. In my opinion the challenge with pushup was never getting them all in it was being able to do the max. You could give some people 10 minutes and they aren't going to do any more pushups than they already can.

I also like the idea of removing the waist measurement with the extra points being made up in any category you want. Basically, have a minimum for pushups, situps, and run. On top of the three minimums you need to pick upa few extra points. It would be on the individual how they want to do that.

I also agree with the standards being set based on your age as opposed to age groups.

In shirt, I agree with lots of portions of this guy's idea. I just think he is ate up for two reasons. Number one he wants to test people four times per year. That is a huge waste. The biggest reason he is ate up is this quote from the article

Really? He knew he was injured but he gutted it out anyways? That is a good way to hurt yourself. That just tells you how much value the AF and this guy put on the test. Even though he's hurt he thinks he is Peyton Manning playing in the super bowl and he is just going to gut it out for the good of the team.

Couldn't read it as I'm not a subscriber.

I don't quite understand the "extra points" thing. Maybe the article explained it more in depth?

And as far as 4 tests a year, that is crazy. I always thought that if they want people to stay in shape all year then they should just do random testing. Could be anytime within the 12 month period. Get a call from the orderly room saying "I need you to come sign some paperwork...bring your PT gear".

Measure Man

07-03-2014, 09:15 PM

Apoligies if someone has already posted this but I didn't see it. Check out this article from AF Times. This 9 year SSgt has some ideas for the AF

The biggest thing that jumps out is the test 4 times per year thing. Sorry buddy but that's already being done. In fact a lot of squadrons are having practice PT tests every single month. Testing people 4 times per year would be a huge waste of money.

I did like his idea about changing the pushup and situps to 2 minutes and not having a max number of points. In my opinion the challenge with pushup was never getting them all in it was being able to do the max. You could give some people 10 minutes and they aren't going to do any more pushups than they already can.

That's probably true for sit-ups and push-ups. The time has nothing to do with it...just don't have a time limit at all, but must rest in the up position.

I also like the idea of removing the waist measurement with the extra points being made up in any category you want. Basically, have a minimum for pushups, situps, and run. On top of the three minimums you need to pick upa few extra points. It would be on the individual how they want to do that.

That's how it is now and people bitch that "it's stupid that you can pass every component and fail the test."

I also agree with the standards being set based on your age as opposed to age groups.

In shirt, I agree with lots of portions of this guy's idea. I just think he is ate up for two reasons. Number one he wants to test people four times per year. That is a huge waste. The biggest reason he is ate up is this quote from the article

Really? He knew he was injured but he gutted it out anyways? That is a good way to hurt yourself. That just tells you how much value the AF and this guy put on the test. Even though he's hurt he thinks he is Peyton Manning playing in the super bowl and he is just going to gut it out for the good of the team.

No test will make everyone happy...they need to just stick with what they have and quit moving the goal line.

There is no perfect test, and ask 10 experts to develop a fit test, you will get 10 different answers and the the other 9 will think that each other test is stupid, moronic and ridiculous.

Chris_1991-2011

07-04-2014, 12:35 AM

Did a Google search and found this article from the Navy Times: http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140630/NEWS/306300013/Fix-PT-test-Former-PT-leader-creates-new-scoring (Seems to be the complete article. You'll need to be a subscriber to view the links listed under Related Links)

EDIT - 7/5: When I posted the above link it went to the complete article. Now it takes you to a page that says you have to be a subscriber to see the complete article.

Gonzo432

07-04-2014, 01:20 AM

I read this story and I'm retired so I really don't have a dog in the fight. One thing I liked was changing for every year you age (which does happen about every year.) It was 5 years between changes when I was AD, changed to 10 sometime later. I can tell you from experience, there is a big difference between being 35 and being 39 and 10 months. Hell, stuff doesn't start hurting until your 35.

sandsjames

07-04-2014, 12:45 PM

I read this story and I'm retired so I really don't have a dog in the fight. One thing I liked was changing for every year you age (which does happen about every year.) It was 5 years between changes when I was AD, changed to 10 sometime later. I can tell you from experience, there is a big difference between being 35 and being 39 and 10 months. Hell, stuff doesn't start hurting until your 35.

100% agree. The difference between an 18 year old and 29 year old is big. The difference between the 30 and 39 year old is even bigger, physically (not what can be reached but by what it takes to get to the same point and extra years of wear and tear on the body).

Here's my opinion. If AF members are all expected to be "fit to fight" and the standards of a 49 year old passing are considered good for "fit to fight" then that should be the same standard across the board. Or does the military expect the younger guys to carry the older guys, physically, in combat situations?

Grease Monkey

07-04-2014, 02:40 PM

4 times a year is ridiculous. If the Air Force was really serious about PT and they truly want people to be fit to fight at all times, then test just once a year, randomly. That would give the Air Force a true picture of who takes PT seriously and who does not. However, the truth is the Air Force does not care about PT, they care about image, thus the tape measurement exists and is worth so much of the score.

Chief_KO

07-04-2014, 10:47 PM

100% agree. The difference between an 18 year old and 29 year old is big. The difference between the 30 and 39 year old is even bigger, physically (not what can be reached but by what it takes to get to the same point and extra years of wear and tear on the body).

Here's my opinion. If AF members are all expected to be "fit to fight" and the standards of a 49 year old passing are considered good for "fit to fight" then that should be the same standard across the board. Or does the military expect the younger guys to carry the older guys, physically, in combat situations?

I had two Airmen carry me around my last two years.:)

Sergeant eNYgma

07-05-2014, 11:20 AM

Tempted to subscribe to read this I'm very curious of what he's proposing. 4 tests a year is way too much. Truthfully I don't even mind 2x a year but no more than that. Also the extra points thing...isn't that how people kinda did it anyway? If you knew you weren't great as pushups but were a good runner you hauled ass on that portion and got the points back.

technomage1

07-07-2014, 10:11 AM

I liked his proposal in general but agree with most on here that 4x a year is too much. 2x a year is more than adequate.

socal1200r

07-07-2014, 03:07 PM

IMO, with very few exceptions, the terms "combat" and "airmen" should not be used in the same sentence. For everyone other than PJs, CCTs, TACPs, and the like, more emphasis should be placed on one knowing their actual AFSC and being able to do their job, not on some PT test. I get so sick and tired of hearing all this "warrior airmen" BS. Newflash - we're not all "combat" or "warrior" airmen! Let those that want to be the meat-eaters and snake-hunters do PT to their heart's content. But for me, I'd just as soon have people that know their actual jobs and can do it on a daily basis.

WILDJOKER5

07-07-2014, 03:20 PM

Couldn't read it as I'm not a subscriber.

I don't quite understand the "extra points" thing. Maybe the article explained it more in depth?

And as far as 4 tests a year, that is crazy. I always thought that if they want people to stay in shape all year then they should just do random testing. Could be anytime within the 12 month period. Get a call from the orderly room saying "I need you to come sign some paperwork...bring your PT gear".But then how would I get my waiver just before my test comes up if it was at any time during the year? :)

WILDJOKER5

07-07-2014, 03:25 PM

100% agree. The difference between an 18 year old and 29 year old is big. The difference between the 30 and 39 year old is even bigger, physically (not what can be reached but by what it takes to get to the same point and extra years of wear and tear on the body).

Here's my opinion. If AF members are all expected to be "fit to fight" and the standards of a 49 year old passing are considered good for "fit to fight" then that should be the same standard across the board. Or does the military expect the younger guys to carry the older guys, physically, in combat situations?

Typically, wouldnt the 49 y/o be sitting in the rear commanding like every higher ranking person does now a days? Except if the AF is really going to let in the 39 y/os enlist like they are trying to.

efmbman

07-07-2014, 04:37 PM

I'm not so sure about the other services, but I have a feeling the USAF will not have any problems thinning their ranks in the years to come.

sandsjames

07-08-2014, 12:19 PM

Typically, wouldnt the 49 y/o be sitting in the rear commanding like every higher ranking person does now a days? Except if the AF is really going to let in the 39 y/os enlist like they are trying to.

Exactly...if you are going to have 40 year old A1Cs then they should be able to do the same things physically as a 19 year old.

Maybe break the standards down by rank.

OtisRNeedleman

07-08-2014, 03:31 PM

IMO, with very few exceptions, the terms "combat" and "airmen" should not be used in the same sentence. For everyone other than PJs, CCTs, TACPs, and the like, more emphasis should be placed on one knowing their actual AFSC and being able to do their job, not on some PT test. I get so sick and tired of hearing all this "warrior airmen" BS. Newflash - we're not all "combat" or "warrior" airmen! Let those that want to be the meat-eaters and snake-hunters do PT to their heart's content. But for me, I'd just as soon have people that know their actual jobs and can do it on a daily basis.

Well put, but today's AF doesn't care if you know or can do your job, as long as you pass the PT tests, man the bake sales, contribute positively to the unit climate, volunteer downtown, not drink for the first 30 days if in Korea, and remain politically correct. Heck, pretty soon they'll be getting rid of all those expensive, noisy, fossil-fuel-using airplanes.

Cache Trogle

07-08-2014, 06:43 PM

Couldn't read it as I'm not a subscriber.

I don't quite understand the "extra points" thing. Maybe the article explained it more in depth?

And as far as 4 tests a year, that is crazy. I always thought that if they want people to stay in shape all year then they should just do random testing. Could be anytime within the 12 month period. Get a call from the orderly room saying "I need you to come sign some paperwork...bring your PT gear".

All year round in shape, and all year round able to pass the test are not the same thing. I lost a lot of respect and faith for the Command Chief who had lunch with us several yrs back. He said (not verbatim) "you shouldn't cram for the pt test. be in shape year round".
How about doing that for SKT? No cramming. Get a call from the orderly room. "Bring a pencil". Better pass the promotion test,...or you lose your current rank.
No? Or can you still be competent at your job, just not excatly able to score high on SKT, without a bit of "cramming"?
People cram.
This where the line gets blurred and off topic with AF PT and the AF PT Test. Is it about being fit or is it about being healthy so they don't have to pay you when get old and broken downzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (yes, everyone falls alseep because we hear it constantly).
It's about a test when you have that test score sheet and the people monitoring the test describe a proper push up like you are about to perform open heart surgery. We are so much our own worst enemy. PT is a blackhole in the AF.

socal1200r

07-09-2014, 04:13 PM

Here's my opinion on this whole AFPT nonsense...round is a shape, but if you can do your damn job, and do it well, that's more important than any AFPT assessment...

sandsjames

07-09-2014, 06:43 PM

Here's my opinion on this whole AFPT nonsense...round is a shape, but if you can do your damn job, and do it well, that's more important than any AFPT assessment...

But WE ARE WARRIORS!!!!! We can't be fat.

Chris_1991-2011

07-11-2014, 01:10 AM

Did a Google search and found this article from the Navy Times: http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140630/NEWS/306300013/Fix-PT-test-Former-PT-leader-creates-new-scoring (Seems to be the complete article. You'll need to be a subscriber to view the links listed under Related Links)

EDIT - 7/5: When I posted the above link it went to the complete article. Now it takes you to a page that says you have to be a subscriber to see the complete article.

Like others that have posted I'm not a subscriber. When I posted the above link it led to the complete article and, just in case, I copied the article for future/off-line reference. I was about to post the copy of the article but found that the above link (Navy Times) as well as the link posted in the OP works. If the links stop leading to the complete article again and anyone wants me to post a copy let me know.

cloudFFVII

07-11-2014, 03:20 AM

I think any discussion about PT can be a positive one. Here's the issue I have, and it's all with the A/C:

When you have one blanket maximum (39") for ALL ages, I think it's reasonable to assume 99% of FTA (18-22) should pass this no problem (yes, there are exceptions).

When you start expecting 35, 40, 45 year olds to have the SAME measurement, it goes against any sane application of a) you're not in college and b) you're not 18 as those people are when establishing those standards.

Is it really to hard to just play the "looking unfit in the uniform" card? That's how it pretty much worked when I came in, at least in the beginning (There was the weight chart, and the bike test came in shortly thereafter).

But any commander could simply see someone who basically was popping out of their uniform and tell their supervision they were unfit in uniform. That would immediately start a series of actions. I didn't see this abused to my recollection.

Anyways...my LARGER point is we will still allow people to hit a 6 pack a night and/or smoke 2 packs a day (causing an myriad of health problems both on duty and AFTER their military time is over, but do little to nothing about it. And of course, the whole "premise" behind the A/C is the SAME THING!!!

Don't know about you, but if I was in combat and had a choice between a) a guy who could bench 400+ pounds and do 70 pushups in a minute but has a 40" A/C or b) scrawny 150 guy who can hit the mins but has a 26 inch waist and runs like the wind I want the big guy every single time.

Are we an AF ready for the next war on terror that is coming or the next war in the boardroom?

fourdegrees11

07-12-2014, 02:38 AM

I like his revised scoring. The 4 times a year testing is junk though. Getting a good score (90+) shows that you are in excellent shape according to AF standards and are rewarded by only having to prove it once per year. It's one of the only adult things left in the AF.

The random testing idea would only work if you are given at least 72 hours notice. If you're in shape year round you're working out year round. I know I would be pretty irate if I destroyed myself doing squats and deadlifts at the gym only to come to work and be told "Surprise PT test!!!".

Stalwart

07-12-2014, 02:51 AM

The random testing idea would only work if you are given at least 72 hours notice. If you're in shape year round you're working out year round. I know I would be pretty irate if I destroyed myself doing squats and deadlifts at the gym only to come to work and be told "Surprise PT test!!!".

I have always been in favor of always being ready to be tested (for any standard), but agree with your example. If random testing became policy, I would hope a random test would only be pass or fail and not count for a score.

giggawatt

07-12-2014, 03:24 PM

I like his revised scoring. The 4 times a year testing is junk though. Getting a good score (90+) shows that you are in excellent shape according to AF standards and are rewarded by only having to prove it once per year. It's one of the only adult things left in the AF.

The random testing idea would only work if you are given at least 72 hours notice. If you're in shape year round you're working out year round. I know I would be pretty irate if I destroyed myself doing squats and deadlifts at the gym only to come to work and be told "Surprise PT test!!!".

This is a valid point. I'm in shape year round but when that random test comes around and I just destroyed chest in my morning workout or the day before then I won't perform well on the pushups portion. Doesn't mean I'm any less shape.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)

07-13-2014, 03:56 PM

This is a valid point. I'm in shape year round but when that random test comes around and I just destroyed chest in my morning workout or the day before then I won't perform well on the pushups portion. Doesn't mean I'm any less shape.

Random doesn't work when you just washed down a 1-footer Charlie's Philly Cheesesteak with a large, yummy Baskin Robbin's Chocolate Shake topped with whipped cream and a cherry.

BigBaze

07-13-2014, 11:19 PM

Yeah I think we should do it, we obviously don't have enough things that waste our time during the day and get in the way of the mission being accomplished.

giggawatt

07-14-2014, 12:32 PM

Random doesn't work when you just washed down a 1-footer Charlie's Philly Cheesesteak with a large, yummy Baskin Robbin's Chocolate Shake topped with whipped cream and a cherry.

This is also true. It would be a dangerous game during bulking season.

sandsjames

07-14-2014, 12:57 PM

This is also true. It would be a dangerous game during bulking season.

Really, though, there's no reason that the "random" test couldn't give you up to 96 hours to test. It's not like a drug test where steps could be taken to help pass. If one isn't able to pass the PT test, 3-5 days of prep isn't going to help...and that would give you time to skip a day at the gym so your chest isn't "destroyed".

giggawatt

07-14-2014, 07:06 PM

Really, though, there's no reason that the "random" test couldn't give you up to 96 hours to test. It's not like a drug test where steps could be taken to help pass. If one isn't able to pass the PT test, 3-5 days of prep isn't going to help...and that would give you time to skip a day at the gym so your chest isn't "destroyed".

No arguments here. 72 hours would be enough time to recover.

jshiver15

07-18-2014, 11:16 PM

Couldn't read it as I'm not a subscriber.

I don't quite understand the "extra points" thing. Maybe the article explained it more in depth?

And as far as 4 tests a year, that is crazy. I always thought that if they want people to stay in shape all year then they should just do random testing. Could be anytime within the 12 month period. Get a call from the orderly room saying "I need you to come sign some paperwork...bring your PT gear".

I'd agree with that, but I think you should give people at least a week's notice. For me, some of my post workout days I can barely lift my arms, let alone try to max out pushups. A week is enough time to recover, but not enough time to whip yourself into shape if you've been sitting on a couch all year.

jshiver15

07-18-2014, 11:20 PM

100% agree. The difference between an 18 year old and 29 year old is big. The difference between the 30 and 39 year old is even bigger, physically (not what can be reached but by what it takes to get to the same point and extra years of wear and tear on the body).

Here's my opinion. If AF members are all expected to be "fit to fight" and the standards of a 49 year old passing are considered good for "fit to fight" then that should be the same standard across the board. Or does the military expect the younger guys to carry the older guys, physically, in combat situations?

This is something I have a big problem with. Not only are we talking about 18 years old straight out of highschool, but we're taking into consideration that these kids haven't been doing (for the most part) jobs that result in wear and tear on their bodies. A 29 year old with potentially 11-12 years in the military may have some damage to their body that an 18 year old isn't going to be dealing with. Whoever came up with that age group is a frikkin' idiot.

Roto

08-06-2014, 03:21 PM

I like the idea of random PT Testings. Treat it the same as drug testing, random and can be called to do it anywhere from 0 to 100 times per year. If everyone is expected to be drug free year round, then everyone should be expected to be in peak physical conditional all year.